JUDGMENT 1. - This order will dispose of both the above numbered writ petitions, both having been filed against the award dated 23rd October 1979 of the learned Labour Court, Kota. The said award was made in a reference to it under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the I.D. Act) by the State Government. The dispute related to the alleged illegal termination of the services of Avtar Singh, a worker. The learned Judge, Labour Court under the aforesaid award held that Sh. Avtar Singh was a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act and the termination of his services was retrenchment within the meaning of Section 2(oo) of the I.D. Act. But taking into consideration that the petitioner Shri Bhagwati Re-rolling Mills, Bundi (for short the mill) had been closed in July 1974 and instead of ordering reinstatement with back wages, the learned Judge, Labour Court awarded Rs. 15,000/- as compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages. 2. As said earlier, two writ petitions have been filed, one by the Management of the mill and other by the Avtar Singh, the workman. Whereas in writ petition filed by the mill the award has been challenged on the ground that Avtar Singh was not a workman and in the writ petition filed by Avtar Singh, the award given by the learned Judge was challenged. 3. Avtar Singh was appointed at Rs. 1,000/- per month wages and there is no dispute that in the order of appointment, the status was not mentioned as to whether he was a workman or was appointed in managerial or supervisory capacity. It appears that Avtar Singh was appointed on 19th September 1971 w.e.f. 1st October 1971 at Rs. 1,000/- per month as wages, he being a skilled technical worker. His services were terminated under order dated 17th March 1973 with immediate effect and it will appear from the order of termination which was filed before the learned Judge, Labour Court that only wages for 17 days i.e. for 17 days for the month of March for which Avtar Singh had worked were paid to him while terminating his services. Union raised an industrial dispute, there were conciliation proceedings which failed and ultimately the Government referred the dispute for adjudication to the learned Judge, Labour Court, Kota. 4. Union raised an industrial dispute, there were conciliation proceedings which failed and ultimately the Government referred the dispute for adjudication to the learned Judge, Labour Court, Kota. 4. Statement of claim was filed by Avtar Singh wherein he came out with a case that he was a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act and because in the year 1973 he had taken keen interest in the union of the workers and that is why the management became angry with him and his services were terminated on 17th March 1973. He came out with a specific case in statement of claim that he was purely a technical hand and he was not working in any supervisory or managerial capacity. In reply to the aforesaid statement of claim of Avtar Singh, the management came out with a reply that he was appointed in managerial and supervisory capacity and, therefore, he was not a workman, and therefore, the learned Judge, Labour Court had no jurisdiction to go into the matter. It was not disputed that while terminating the services of Avtar Singh, neither any charge-sheet was given to him nor any enquiry for the alleged misconduct, if any, of Avtar Singh was held. Both the parties examined their witnesses and the learned Judge, Labour Court analysed the evidence brought before him and, therefore on the question as to whether Avtar Singh was a workman or not within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act, the learned Judge recorded a finding that he was a workman as he was not working in managerial or supervisory capacity. Dealing with the question the learned Judge said that the termination was illegal because the provision of Section 25-F were not complied with and no enquiry what-so-ever was held for the alleged misconduct and all of a sudden his services were terminated. But as said earlier, the mill has been closed in July 1973 and was not functioning, the learned Judge, Labour Court instead of ordering re-instatement with back wages which would have been normal order, ordered payment of Rs. 15,000/- as compensation. 5. The first contention of the learned counsel for the management is that the finding of the learned Judge, Labour Court that Avtar Singh was appointed not in managerial or supervisory capacity is not based on evidence and, therefore, this court should set aside the aforesaid finding. 15,000/- as compensation. 5. The first contention of the learned counsel for the management is that the finding of the learned Judge, Labour Court that Avtar Singh was appointed not in managerial or supervisory capacity is not based on evidence and, therefore, this court should set aside the aforesaid finding. The law is settled that while exercising under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this court does not exercise appellate jurisdiction and if two views are possible, one is taken on finding of fact arrived at by the Tribunal, this court does not go to the question of fact in case finding of fact is not perverse. So far as present case is concerned, I have gone through the award and it can be said that the learned Judge did take into consideration not only the order of appointment made by the management wherein it is not mentioned that he was appointed in managerial or supervisory capacity, but has also taken into consideration the fact that Avtar Singh used to work on the machines and also took into consideration the omission of the management to produce any documentary evidence in order to establish that at any point of time Avtar Singh at all discharged managerial or supervisory functions. 6. A look at Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act will show that any person employed in an industry to do any manual, unskilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, is included in the definition of workman. But only a person employed in supervisory capacity and who draws wages exceeding Rs. 1,600/- (at to relevant time it was Rs. 500/-) is in the excluded category of workman. Therefore, from the finding of the learned Judge, Labour Court which is as said earlier cannot be said to be perverse and based on material that Avtar Singh was a skilled workman it can be said that he comes within the term 'workman' as given under section 2(s) of the I.D. Act and, therefore, the learned Judge, Labour Court had jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute referred to it under section 10 of the I.D. Act. 7. 7. Even the learned counsel for the management could not challenge the finding of the learned Judge, Labour Court that the termination amounts to retrenchment within the meaning of Section 2(oo) of the I.D. Act and admittedly, as stated earlier no enquiry what-so-ever even if, there was any misconduct on the part of Avtar Singh was conducted by the management and under order dated 17th March 1973 his services were terminated, giving him 17 days wages and as such there was no non-compliance of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act. The law is settled that if services of a workman are retrenched without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act then the order is nonest and the workman is entitled for reinstatement with back wages. This is a general rule but there are bound to be some exceptions and one exception has to be that there is closure of industry. In such cases there is no question and can be no question of ordering re-instatement and only the order of payment of compensation in lieu of reinstatement could be made by the learned Judge, Labour Court. It will appear from the material on record that in the reply to the statement of claim which was filed by the management, a specific case was set up that the mill was closed in the month of July 1973 and Avtar Singh never came out with a plea that the mill has not been closed or that has been shifted to Jaipur. It will appear from the cross-examination of Avtar Singh that the mill is lying closed, though he could not show that it is closed since July 1973. Even other witnesses who were examined before the Judge Labour Court have said that the mill was closed since July 173 and surprisingly no cross-examination on that part of the statement was made by Avtar Singh. Therefore, it can be said that the learned Judge, Labour Court could have come to the conclusion that the mill was closed since July 1973 and came to that conclusion. It does appear that now the Bhagwati Re-rolling mill has been shifted from Bundi to Jaipur and now functioning at Jaipur. Therefore, it can be said that the learned Judge, Labour Court could have come to the conclusion that the mill was closed since July 1973 and came to that conclusion. It does appear that now the Bhagwati Re-rolling mill has been shifted from Bundi to Jaipur and now functioning at Jaipur. Such a case was set up by the management in its rejoinder to the reply of the writ petition in para 3, which reply was filed on 3rd September 1980 the original is not traceable in the file and copy was handed over by Mr. Jain learned counsel for the management to me it shows that the establishment at Jaipur is new and a separate establishment which came into existence in the year 1977 after obtaining land from the Government, fresh power connections from the R.S.E.B. and after obtaining other relevant licenses. 8. sub-section (1) of Section 25-FFF provides that where an undertaking is closed down for any reason what-so-ever every workman who has been in continuous service for not less than one year in that undertaking immediately before such closure shell, subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) be entitled to notice and compensation in accordance with the provisions of Section 25-F, as if the workman had been retrenched. Under proviso it is provided that where the undertaking is closed down on account of unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of the employer, the compensation to be paid to the workman under clause (b) of Section 25-F shall not exceed his average pay for three months. In the explanation to sub-section (1) of the aforesaid section an undertaking which is closed down by reason merely of (i) financial difficulties (including financial losses); or (ii) accumulation of undisposed of stock; or (iii) the expiry of the period of the lease or licence granted to it; or (iv) in a case where the undertaking is engaged in mining operations, exhaustion of the minerals in the area in which such operations are carried on; shall not be. deemed to be closed down on account of unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of the employer within the meaning of the proviso to this sub-section. Even assuming that it was a closure of the undertaking within the meaning of Section 25-FFF though nothing can be said positively in the absence of pleadings. deemed to be closed down on account of unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of the employer within the meaning of the proviso to this sub-section. Even assuming that it was a closure of the undertaking within the meaning of Section 25-FFF though nothing can be said positively in the absence of pleadings. Compliance of Section 25-F was a condition precedent and admittedly, it was not complied with. The aforesaid permission appears to have escaped the notice of the learned Judge and the learned counsel for the parties did not care to go through the provisions of the I.D. Act and to bring it to the notice of the learned Judge. Be that as it may, merely because the mill was closed, it cannot be said that there was closing down of the undertaking within the meaning of Section 25-FFF of the I.D. Act and even if it be taken as correct as said earlier for the disposal of these writ petitions it was necessary that there must have been compliance of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act and it was not done in this case. As said earlier and even the management does not dispute that now it has started functioning at Jaipur though it is said that it is a new and separate establishment. It is not known whether machinery which were there at Bundi have been shifted or not. It is also not known as to whether the management is in the same hands or not. Therefore, in this case, I fail to understand how the learned Court even if it thought that instead of reinstatement, compensation should be ordered to be paid, it ordered payment of only 15 months wages. There must have been some reasons for him to award for 15 months wages in lieu of reinstatement and that it would meet the ends of justice. Even as per the case of management, the termination was made on 17th March 1973 with immediate effect and the industry continued to function upto July 1974, i.e. for about 16 months. I am, therefore, of the opinion that even if the court of the learned Judge has said that the compensation should be awarded by lump sum payment he should have ordered for payment of not less than Rs. 30,000/- and that too along with interest. 9. I am, therefore, of the opinion that even if the court of the learned Judge has said that the compensation should be awarded by lump sum payment he should have ordered for payment of not less than Rs. 30,000/- and that too along with interest. 9. Consequently, I hereby dismiss the writ petition No. 1077/1980 and allow the writ petition No. 1370/1980 and modify the award dated 23rd October, 1979 of the learned Judge, Labour Court in case No. 50/76 to the extent that instead of Rs. 15,000/- Avtar Singh shall be entitled- to Rs. 30,000/- in lieu of reinstatement and back wages. He will be entitled to the aforesaid amount with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of award. The amount of Rs. 7,000/- has been paid which shall be adjusted. If the remaining amount is not paid within a period of three months along with interest then after the expiry of six months the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum.Petition No. 1077/80 dismissed and Petition No. 1370/80 Partly allowed. *******